Star Trek The General Star Trek Thread - From TOS to Corporate Schenanigans

What's the sitch?

Well-known member
Kinda related to the above post regarding Dukat

I remember seeing DS9 before 9/11 and then afterward as an adult. With new eyes all I could see was terrorists that could not be reasoned with, could never let a grudge go, would never be content and that were always sure of their righteousness and their faith in the prophets all the while stabbing you in the back with a smile on their face.

I honestly feel bad for Dukat when I rewatch the series, he was placed in an untenable position and did try to be fair and reasonable (for a Cardassian) but nothing other than full on leaving was ever going to please the Bajorans(maybe), as far as outright villains go he is definitely a solid grey. He did become jaded and nihilistic later in life , which I feel is what would lead us to see his worse acts.
-----------------------------

We should never have become involved in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:

nemo1986

Well-known member
Kinda related to the above post regarding Dukat

I remember seeing DS9 before 9/11 and then afterward as an adult. With new eyes all I could see was terrorists that could not be reasoned with, could never let a grudge go, would never be content and that were always sure of their righteousness and their faith in the prophets all the while stabbing you in the back with a smile on their face.

I honestly feel bad for Dukat when I rewatch the series, he was placed in an untenable position and did try to be fair and reasonable (for a Cardassian) but nothing other than full on leaving was ever going to please the Bajorans(maybe), as far as outright villains go he is definitely a solid grey. He did become jaded and nihilistic later in life , which I feel is what would lead us to see his worse acts.
-----------------------------

We should never have become involved in the Middle East.
The problem is that the Middle East houses the life blood of modern civilization. If it were anywhere else we would let it rot.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
The problem is the Beta Quadrant is practically straddling the lifeblood of civilization that is the Alpha Quadrant. More then anything it would be great to ignore whats going on in the Beta Quadrant but we just can't. If it were anywhere else, we would just let it rot, like the 32nd Century.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
The problem is the Beta Quadrant is practically straddling the lifeblood of civilization that is the Alpha Quadrant. More then anything it would be great to ignore whats going on in the Beta Quadrant but we just can't. If it were anywhere else, we would just let it rot, like the 32nd Century.
Um Earth, Vulcan and Andoria are all located in the Beta Quadrant. The rest of the Federation is technically in the Alpha Quadrant. Just saying.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Isn't Earth literally on the Alpha/Beta dividing line?

Or does it depend on the map.
On some it is on some it isn't but regardless. It means Starfleet really can't ignore anything happening in the Beta Quadrant. I will also add Risa and several Federation Colony worlds are deep in the Beta Quadrant as well.
 

AndrewJTalon

Well-known member
Founder
On some it is on some it isn't but regardless. It means Starfleet really can't ignore anything happening in the Beta Quadrant. I will also add Risa and several Federation Colony worlds are deep in the Beta Quadrant as well.

Here: The closest map to canon I can find:

startrekstarchart.jpg
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Finally something interesting on the new Star Trek content front.

FI6fouLXoAQy64r


FIL6VuHXsAAyyVK


On some it is on some it isn't but regardless. It means Starfleet really can't ignore anything happening in the Beta Quadrant. I will also add Risa and several Federation Colony worlds are deep in the Beta Quadrant as well.

It was a joke... A terrible one clearly since it got no likes but still...
 

stephen the barbarian

Well-known member

post that caught my eye over on reddit
the tl;dr is the post argues that st; ent should have used "rail guns, flak cannons, and nuclear fission missiles," for 3 reasons
  1. it's aesthetically distinct from the rest of star trek.
  2. the crude effectiveness of such weaponry contrasted with the outgoing nature of Starfleet would cause other species to distrust them due to thematic dissidence
  3. it allow st humanity to "grow into" the traditional weaponry of the setting, both physically and mentally
 

bintananth

behind a desk

post that caught my eye over on reddit
the tl;dr is the post argues that st; ent should have used "rail guns, flak cannons, and nuclear fission missiles," for 3 reasons
  1. it's aesthetically distinct from the rest of star trek.
  2. the crude effectiveness of such weaponry contrasted with the outgoing nature of Starfleet would cause other species to distrust them due to thematic dissidence
  3. it allow st humanity to "grow into" the traditional weaponry of the setting, both physically and mentally

One thing DS9 does get right: Humans are big scary apex predators who do not fuck around when push comes to shove but who also prefer to play nice with others because, like all apex predators, we're also lazy.

Quark said it in a DS9 episode, and I'm paraphrasing: "Take away their comforts and the Federation will be just as mean and nasty as the angriest of Klingons."
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul

post that caught my eye over on reddit
the tl;dr is the post argues that st; ent should have used "rail guns, flak cannons, and nuclear fission missiles," for 3 reasons
  1. it's aesthetically distinct from the rest of star trek.
  2. the crude effectiveness of such weaponry contrasted with the outgoing nature of Starfleet would cause other species to distrust them due to thematic dissidence
  3. it allow st humanity to "grow into" the traditional weaponry of the setting, both physically and mentally

It's actually a pretty compelling argument, and I'd considered it myself for my own version of ENT. But since I wanted to keep UESPA and Earth's military as entirely separate, I decided to save the rail guns for the military ships. The thing I used to try to separate my version of ENT from later eras of Trek is that humans did not have phasers, but did have lasers (which would look different from phasers), and plasma cannons. Sidearms are also either plasma or laser-based, and while they do have a stun weapon, it is an entirely separate weapon and only really works well on humans. Also the ships have missiles which look more or less like modern missiles aside from having a small impulse engine rather than rocket motors, and human ships do not have tractor beams but must instead use EM grapples and externally mounted cranes.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny

post that caught my eye over on reddit
the tl;dr is the post argues that st; ent should have used "rail guns, flak cannons, and nuclear fission missiles," for 3 reasons
  1. it's aesthetically distinct from the rest of star trek.
  2. the crude effectiveness of such weaponry contrasted with the outgoing nature of Starfleet would cause other species to distrust them due to thematic dissidence
  3. it allow st humanity to "grow into" the traditional weaponry of the setting, both physically and mentally


I think it was certainly a mistake to make enterprise so indistinguishable from the rest of the series (the Hull plating being such an obvious stand in for shields to the point they kept doing the "yelling out percentages" thing being the much more relevant example), but this seems to go too far the other way at points.

Yes, a squad of guys with automatic weapons and grenades would crush most ST infantry, I've argued that myself. The issue would then be "why would you ever stop doing that"? Sure, phasers can stun people and be used as a tool and not just a weapon, but that's why you carry both and not just one, maybe stick a phaser onto your rifle as a underbarrel or something. You wouldn't just stop using a weapon like that.

Secondly, this is not the first time we've seen someone show up with weapons that are more powerful or have some particularly ugly effects, and this "ugh, your weapons are terrible, I don't like you" dynamic wasn't in play them. Yeah, no liked the dominion, but the fact their small arms were less than humane wasn't the core issue. It would be unusual if suddenly now everyone cares about exactly what sort of weaponry your ship carries and how it's used, and that would just come across as a contrivance.

His third argument also doesn't quite seem in line with the overall premise. If humans are supposed to be "outwardly diplomatic, peaceful, and xenophillic", it does not quite make sense that after gaining some new technology, they would immediately focus on trying to kill people with it. The reaction the the transporter should not be "man, I bet you could use this to beam a bomb onto an enemy ship" (and as an aside, contra to this reddit post the reason this isn't doable in later series is has been explained since TOS, you can't beam through shields).
 
New Kelvin Timeline Movie Announced/ST: Resurgence dev interview

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Guess what - new Kelvin Timeline movie:
Article:
"We are thrilled to say that we are hard at work on a new Star Trek film that will be shooting by the end of the year that will be featuring our original cast and some new characters that I think are going to be really fun and exciting and help take Star Trek into areas that you’ve just never seen before," Abrams said. "We’re thrilled about this film, we have a bunch of other stories that we’re talking about that we think will be really exciting, so can’t wait for you to see what we’re cooking up. But until then, live long and prosper."

We'd already known that WandaVision director Matt Shakman was attached, though there has been some re-shuffling of the writing line-up, with Avatar 2's Josh Friedman and WandaVision's Cameron Squires taking over from Lindsey Beer and Geneva Robertson-Dworet. Reportedly, Paramount executives commissioned focus group reports on fan interest in the Pine crew returning, and discovered that, yes, people still wanted to watch them.

We've been here before, of course, with rumours of a time-travel scenario that would have seen Pine's Kirk meet his dad, George, played so memorably (and briefly) by Chris Hemsworth in Abrams' 2009 movie. Actor pay deals scuppered that on like a gravitic mine, but there's always the chance they could have figured it out.

And this also likely means that other potential films in development, including those from Quentin Tarantino and Fargo's Noah Hawley are likely headed to dry dock permanently, though Abrams' mention of "a bunch of other stories" might mean their ideas could eventually go ahead in some expanded universe.

No release date was given for the new movie, but that late 2022 shooting start points to a potential late 2023 arrival. We might see this film series boldly going forward once more.


Also, an interview with the Star Trek: Resurgence devs:
Article:
Some of the best Star Trek games are adventure games like Star Trek: 25th Anniversary and Judgement Rites. For more than a decade, Star Trek Online has done an impressive job of bringing the storytelling style of the franchise to episodic online gaming. Did you look towards any of those past Star Trek games for ideas or inspiration in adapting the franchise in Resurgence, or were you more reliant on your own considerable experience?

DM: It's certainly important to know what else is out there. We did a lot of research before beginning development on Star Trek: Resurgence – it's a critical part of the process of making a good licensed game. You need to understand what makes a franchise special, so you don't just end up with something that superficially looks like the IP, but doesn't feel like it. But we also put a lot of stock in our experience making this very specific type of game, and knowing what it takes "under the hood" (or down in engineering, if you will) to craft a compelling interactive story. And ultimately, that experience has a greater impact on this game than something else that came before.

Kent Mudle, cinematic director: We did our research of course, but the kind of game we're making is based on the unique strengths of our team. We've made many story-focused games together, and have a lot of experience adapting different IPs into an interactive medium. We want to make a Star Trek game that only we can make.

Star Trek has told lots of different kinds of stories, from character-focused drama to save-the-galaxy space opera, to comedic bottle episodes, and that continues to evolve in this new streaming era. What storytelling style are you going for in Resurgence?

DM: Our goal from the outset was to deliver on a broad Star Trek experience – from the camaraderie and conflict among the crew to encounters with aliens to exploring mysteries to big action set-pieces with big stakes. The game is set shortly after the TNG era of shows and movies, so stylistically, that's our jumping-off point. But this game is not episodic – we're telling one epic story from start to finish, putting the player at the heart of a grand adventure, where they're the star of one of the feature films.

KM: We're essentially making a playable Star Trek film, one big story that unfolds with the player as the hero(s) of the narrative. Many different scenes and events will occur, but all in service of a larger central plot.


Well, they apparently picked the right guys for this game, since they name drop a lot of good TNG episodes in their "what episodes should you watch to prep for this game?" section, and they also admit that you could do a Trek game without Starfleet or a starship.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
They're letting Abrams make another movie? Right after he steered star wars into the ground?

How?
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
Here's what Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek movie was going to be about:
Article:
Tarantino intended to bring a “Pulp Fiction” vibe to “Star Trek” with an idea that was a largely earthbound story set in a 1930s gangster setting. Tarantino’s pitch appeared to take inspiration from “A Piece of the Action,” the 17th episode of the second season of “Star Trek: The Original Series.” The installment, which aired in 1968, followed the Enterprise crew as they visit a planet with an Earth-like 1920s gangster culture.

[Mark L.] Smith told “Bulletproof Screenwriting” that the screenwriting process started almost immediately after he agreed to work with Tarantino, adding, “I would go hang out at his house one night and we would watch old gangster films. We were there for hours…We were just kicking back watching gangster films, laughing at the bad dialogue, but talking about how it would bleed into what we wanted to do.”

According to Smith, Tarantino’s “Star Trek” idea was “really wild” and like “its own very cool episode.” The plot included “a little time travel stuff going on” and “had a lot of fun” with Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk. Tarantino fans expected the director to go all in on Pine considering Tarantino’s outspoken love for the actor. Tarantino has called the Pine-starring “Unstoppable” one of his favorite action films, and he had nothing but raves for Pine’s performance as Kirk in the 2009 “Star Trek” reboot.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder

post that caught my eye over on reddit
the tl;dr is the post argues that st; ent should have used "rail guns, flak cannons, and nuclear fission missiles," for 3 reasons
  1. it's aesthetically distinct from the rest of star trek.
  2. the crude effectiveness of such weaponry contrasted with the outgoing nature of Starfleet would cause other species to distrust them due to thematic dissidence
  3. it allow st humanity to "grow into" the traditional weaponry of the setting, both physically and mentally

Unlike others, I find this entire premise inherently flawed due to one simple fact.

Even in the Enterprise Era, Navigational Deflectors were a THING used by EVERYONE. The simple existence of these devices basically negates railguns entirely as the way a railgun works is by taking a small mass of metal and accelerating it to very high speeds. The entire point of navigational deflectors is to move small masses moving at very high speeds OUT OF THE WAY of the ship both in realspace and at warp speeds.

This fundamentally means that railguns and pretty much every other form of mass driver should literally just end up skirting around anything they're fired at with minimal impact to the ship in question. Missiles, because they are powered and directed, can compensate for the impact of the navigational deflectors and thus are still effective to deliver payloads, but unguided mass weapons just... they literally do not make any sense given the basic premises of Trek technology, even in the Enterprise era.

In short, railguns would be crude, but also highly INEFFECTIVE in Trek based simply on the underlying technology of the setting. A combination of LASERs and Nuclear Fusion missiles would actually be the weapon set most suited to Enterprise in the period they are involved in, and neither has this fatal flaw of being undercut by one of the most basic underlying tech of the setting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top